Care to join me for a round of deadly poison, or perhaps a healing session? If you could fix my eyes (myopia and astigmatism), that'd be swell.Your Bible does say a lot of stuff that believers should be able to do that none of them can do, including protection from one's own foolishness.

That does not appear in the Bible. Don't you know this was discovered to be a later addition? Isn't that something that you should know?

The entire Bible is a collection of books by different authors, all of which were "later additions" relative to the previous one(s). Isn't that something you should know? By your logic, I can toss out everything after Genesis 1.

To keep this simple, let's say that they have no reason to trust or distrust you - you only just met them.

Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing

There is a flip side too. Let's say that these people don't have faith the sun will rise tomorrow because of their lack of experience. How do you get them to show faith in it?

Let's say these people have computer records stored in DOS, and so they have text documents that support the idea of the sun rising roughly every twenty-four hours. However, nobody living in this underground city has ever been to the surface, as it was sealed off centuries ago.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Only some of them. The title of this forum appears to be built on one of them, that of miraculous healing. But others you cannot, like God gives wisdom to those asking.

I don't think it's beyond the scope of science to explore this. Like the studies that have addressed the effect of prayer on illness, it would be possible to see a study that addresses the effect of prayer on wisdom. Rather than measuring temperature, heart rates, blood pressure, etc, a study might measure longevity of playing Oregon Trail, an experience in which the effect of wisdom can be observed, recorded, and analyzed. The subjects would be blind to the part of the study that determined which group was being prayed over and which was the control group. I'm not convinced scientists wouldn't be able to find more efficient ways to test this, lol!

Quote

How? How could you scientifically prove that you love someone or that they love you?

Keep in mind "proofs" don't exist in science. They exist only in math and alcohol. And don't let the connotation of scientists in lab coats with beakers throw you off either. Science is a methodology, a way of applying critical thinking in a systematic way. It's a perfectly natural for humans. We've all engaged in it, informally, since infancy. The reason we can't do it alone is because we are unaware of our own cognitive biases. This is why getting and considering feedback (peer review formally; informally, listening when people disagree) is important.

I submit you applied a scientific methodology when you calculated the risks to ask your wife to marry you. It all started with your first observation. You then went on to make many more. You considered certain possibilities these observations might mean, formulated a hypothesis, and tested it. The first time you asked her out was a test. The first time you kissed her was a test. The first time you told a joke that flopped at her feet was a test. You took the results from these tests and used them to help determine your next behavior with her. In short, we relate with people based on thinking our brain does seemingly effortlessly, but essentially scientifically nevertheless.

That's because faith and knowledge are inseparable. Knowledge is all the information stored in your head. It can be either accurate knowledge or inaccurate knowledge. Faith in that knowledge is what prompts action on our part.

I have faith that looking both ways before crossing the street will keep me safe. This prompts the action of looking both ways before crossing the street. Is that faith based on knowledge?

I actually have more experience about there being more happiness in giving that there is in receiving. I've never actually tested what would happen if I didn't look both ways before crossing the street. However, I have been both a giver and a receiver. Being a giver makes me happier. So is my faith in Christ's words based on knowledge?

The idea that knowledge means "information stored in your head" is really interesting because it would mean you and I could both simultaneously "know" things that refute each other's knowledge. I could "know" that the cause of influenza is a virus and you could "know" that the cause of influenza is demonic intervention. By your use of the word, we both have knowledge [information in our heads], and it doesn't matter if it's reflective of reality or not because by your account that's not what knowledge addresses. That is to say, it doesn't matter which one of us is factually correct because the way you use it, knowledge doesn't address accuracy, only certainty.

I wonder what would happen if we stopped using the word knowledge and instead used the word "data," which means roughly the same thing, albeit usually referred to in a more formal setting.

"That's because faith and data are inseparable. Data is all the information stored in your head. It can be either accurate data or inaccurate data. Faith in that data is what prompts action on our part."

Would you agree faith and data are inseparable? If I have faith in the healing powers of crystals, does that mean there is data that confirms the healing powers of crystals? Is data merely the information stored in my head? What if that information is inaccurate? Incomplete? Associated with strong emotions that skew my ability to consider it objectively? What if my analysis of the data is inaccurate?

I agree we are prompted into action according to the data we have at our disposal. For example, I'm prompted to look both ways before crossing the street because I am aware of the data that shows a human body cannot easily withstand the impact of a two ton automobile going 40 mph.

I understand Jetson's comment to reflect ideas like no longer punishing non-virgin brides or homosexuals with death. We no longer tolerate local churches burning heretics at the stake. We identify threats differently and our moral behaviors reflect that. Our compassion is growing to include people not traditionally set firmly within the "ingroup" of the religion. The lack of empathy Jst shows with regard to the suffering of innocent people is far less common today than it used to be, which is why it's so abhorrent to hear someone promote this kind of psychopathy. It's simply no longer a part of our general social expectations.

i personally dont believe in morality.

on what basis are anyone's beliefs "abhorrent?"

Logged

don't make excuses for nasty people. you don't put a flower in an asshole and call it a vase.

I understand Jetson's comment to reflect ideas like no longer punishing non-virgin brides or homosexuals with death. We no longer tolerate local churches burning heretics at the stake. We identify threats differently and our moral behaviors reflect that. Our compassion is growing to include people not traditionally set firmly within the "ingroup" of the religion. The lack of empathy Jst shows with regard to the suffering of innocent people is far less common today than it used to be, which is why it's so abhorrent to hear someone promote this kind of psychopathy. It's simply no longer a part of our general social expectations.

i personally dont believe in morality.

on what basis are anyone's beliefs "abhorrent?"

Technically, I agree with you. Nature alone knows no difference. It is humans that apply the distinctions, and those distinctions have changed over time. We all know that it hurts severely to be burned by flame, so we tend to consider it abhorrent to apply flames to another person. We all tend to agree that throwing an infant out of a 2 story window is abhorrent.

However, we also tend to think that a lion eating a newborn calf that cannot run is abhorrent, when it is actually nature running a quite natural course. It seems quite abhorrent to me when a young man walks into an elementary school and slaughters dozens of children. But shooting another human can also be considered an act of heroism if it saves innocent life or lives (situational.)

Interesting. Can you explain what you are referring to by morality? And then can you explain what you instead use to determine what actions you ought to do and what actions you ought not to do?

hi jaime

i imagine i have the same definition of morality as you do: the apparatus used to decide what actions (or beliefs) are good, and what are bad. fundamentally, thats all that morality is.

where it comes from is more complex. in my opinion, morality can come from three sources: evolution, aesthetics/emotion, or god.

i reject the source from god. i consider the source from evolution relevant only if evolutionary fitness is elevated to a Good, a priori. i see no reason why it should be.

that leaves aesthetics/emotions, which is my own basis. i believe in my moral system on the basis of having Made Shit Up, and do not consider my moral beliefs rational, logical, or applicable to people who disagree.

i am guessing you have morals as well. where do they come from in your case, and how far do tbey extend?

Logged

don't make excuses for nasty people. you don't put a flower in an asshole and call it a vase.

do you mean, would i throw bombs at austrohungarian archdukes? no. probably not.

if you mean, do i consider life meaningless, then yes, i do.

worms, and all that. doesnt mean i dont care about things. thats the essential absurdity of my condition.

what do you care about, jet? why does it matter?

An ethical nihilist!

I used to read a blogger that called himself an ethical nihilist.

I have thought a lot about what matters, and meaning. I tend to agree. The meaning we seem to cherish as a species is immature at best. Purpose is similar, why does everything have to have a purpose? I don't think it does. What is the purpose of a giraffe?

I think what matters most is what we do with our time, and how we treat others while we're here. I don't want to hurt anyone, and I don't want anyone to hurt me, for example.

As I grow older, I tend to think more about available time to do the things I enjoy. I'm not very good at it, but I have improved. I don't spend any extra time at work, and I am spending my personal time working with a friend releasing original music. I have lost interest in all of the typical associations with releasing music, fame and fortune, and just want to complete various projects and get them out there for people to enjoy. We will not make any money, and it is not likely we will become famous. But if we get some new listeners, and they enjoy the songs, I'm happy.

i also consider the avoidance of pain and injury to be the highest good there can be, followed by the pursiot of well-being and equanimity. im a vegetarian, a pacifist, a supporter of consistent life. none of it is justifiable by my ultimate beliefs, lots is inconsistent. all of it is absurd.

i dont mind inconsistency as long as it is recognized and acknowledged.

in my own case, ive mostly withdrawn from the mainstream paths of american culture. my father died when he was seven years older than i am now, and so there are lots of choices i make with that in mind. the future is no longer wide-open, so to speak.

its interesting that you have chosen music. i have chose land speed racing. both of these activities are ephemeral, although you can presrrve a musical performance these days. all you get in racing a motorcycle is is overat the end of the run.

Logged

don't make excuses for nasty people. you don't put a flower in an asshole and call it a vase.

What do you mean "believe in it"? You don't believe morality exists? You don't believe in a universal morality?

I understand morality to be an effect of neurology, subjectively determined but objectively existent in humans and other animals, like some other primates. I understand morality to be determined biologically, and that includes social influences.

I suppose I'd suggest beliefs are abhorrent when they are so far removed from the accepted status quo of a community that society as a whole considers them detrimental.

Personally, I think beliefs are abhorrent when they can and/or do lead to significant unjustified suffering.

The entire Bible is a collection of books by different authors, all of which were "later additions" relative to the previous one(s). Isn't that something you should know? By your logic, I can toss out everything after Genesis 1.

There is a difference between adding an additional book and adding something to a book that has already been written. Why don't you know that?

Quote

Fear is the beginning of subservience.Only fools espouse the benefits of bondage and gullibility.

What makes it foolish?

Logged

Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

The entire Bible is a collection of books by different authors, all of which were "later additions" relative to the previous one(s). Isn't that something you should know? By your logic, I can toss out everything after Genesis 1.

There is a difference between adding an additional book and adding something to a book that has already been written. Why don't you know that?

Quote

Fear is the beginning of subservience.Only fools espouse the benefits of bondage and gullibility.

What makes it foolish?

Oh, if only you would spend some time looking at the critical historical aspects of the books within the Bible. Wouldn't you want to know if any of the text were forged, or misrepresented, or modified form the original? I think it is extremely foolish to ignore real experts and swallow the musings of old men who merely accept it all as pure truth.

The entire Bible is a collection of books by different authors, all of which were "later additions" relative to the previous one(s). Isn't that something you should know? By your logic, I can toss out everything after Genesis 1.

There is a difference between adding an additional book and adding something to a book that has already been written. Why don't you know that?

no, jst, there is no difference, but you certainly wish there was to excuse your ignorant claim.

Quote

Fear is the beginning of subservience.Only fools espouse the benefits of bondage and gullibility.

Quote

What makes it foolish?

so, you willign to be someone's slave, jst? Is it best to be owned and controlled or not? Or are we back to might equals right, which has you excusing most of the worst people in history?

and I am curious if you think babies and children are people or not.

« Last Edit: April 17, 2018, 12:07:56 PM by velkyn »

Logged

"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

God brought about some wars in ancient Israel. Humans have fought two WORLD wars and this world has remained at a constant state of war since. I just don't see where "modern morals" are all that good.

Per your own admission, we're simply doing what you claim your god did, but on a bigger scale. Surely if "some wars" are good, then many wars are better, no? Or is this a "less is more" scenario, in which case why did your god start wars in the first place?

There is no comparison in jst's world. God is good, and we have no way of challenging that, nor should we. He can't even acknowledge that genocide is bad, he wants objective proof. Genocide is good if executed by God. Go figure.

The because you keep trying to insert objective morals.

I cannot agree when you keep failing to define "bad" by failing to explain what makes his actions bad. You assert the flood and the killing of Israel's enemies was bad. My question is, bad for what?

Logged

Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

God brought about some wars in ancient Israel. Humans have fought two WORLD wars and this world has remained at a constant state of war since. I just don't see where "modern morals" are all that good.

Per your own admission, we're simply doing what you claim your god did, but on a bigger scale. Surely if "some wars" are good, then many wars are better, no? Or is this a "less is more" scenario, in which case why did your god start wars in the first place?

There is no comparison in jst's world. God is good, and we have no way of challenging that, nor should we. He can't even acknowledge that genocide is bad, he wants objective proof. Genocide is good if executed by God. Go figure.

The because you keep trying to insert objective morals.

I cannot agree when you keep failing to define "bad" by failing to explain what makes his actions bad. You assert the flood and the killing of Israel's enemies was bad. My question is, bad for what?

So morality is subjective. How, then, is this god's judgement of who's righteous and who's not any more valid than mine or the prostitutes I drove by a few months ago?

Logged

My names are many, yet I am One.-Orion, son of Fire and Light, Sol Invictus.

no, jst, there is no difference, but you certainly wish there was to excuse your ignorant claim.

Really? So me writing a book about a subject is no different than me adding to someone else's book? Why then is that illegal?

Should we teach our children it's okay to add to other people's books? Don't you think that's a bit ridiculous? I mean, do you listen to yourself?

Quote

so, you willign to be someone's slave, jst? Is it best to be owned and controlled or not? Or are we back to might equals right, which has you excusing most of the worst people in history?

and I am curious if you think babies and children are people or not.

We are all slaves to whatever we obey.

"Come to me, all you who are toiling and loaded down, and I will refresh you. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am mild-tempered and lowly in heart, and you will find refreshment for yourselves. For my yoke is kindly, and my load is light.” (Mt 11:28-30)

Christians are all Christ's slaves and they were bought with the price of his own blood. They are his property. And there is nothing foolish about serving Christ.

Yes, children are people too. But they are not men and women.

Logged

Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

God brought about some wars in ancient Israel. Humans have fought two WORLD wars and this world has remained at a constant state of war since. I just don't see where "modern morals" are all that good.

Per your own admission, we're simply doing what you claim your god did, but on a bigger scale. Surely if "some wars" are good, then many wars are better, no? Or is this a "less is more" scenario, in which case why did your god start wars in the first place?

There is no comparison in jst's world. God is good, and we have no way of challenging that, nor should we. He can't even acknowledge that genocide is bad, he wants objective proof. Genocide is good if executed by God. Go figure.

The because you keep trying to insert objective morals.

I cannot agree when you keep failing to define "bad" by failing to explain what makes his actions bad. You assert the flood and the killing of Israel's enemies was bad. My question is, bad for what?

I'm not inserting objective morals, I'm inserting human morals. Is it not objectively bad for humans to commit genocide against other humans? Was Hitler a good guy? What exactly are you getting at jst?

If the god you worship is objectively worse in his behavior, that would be something his followers should be able to explain to me. Can you explain it? Or are you simply subservient, as I have said multiple times? You do not have an option, correct? Everything your god does is objectively good, correct?

What do you mean "believe in it"? You don't believe morality exists? You don't believe in a universal morality?

i believe morality is all made-up. there is no universal morality that applies to anybody who chooses to disagree.

Quote

I understand morality to be an effect of neurology, subjectively determined but objectively existent in humans and other animals, like some other primates. I understand morality to be determined biologically, and that includes social influences.

I suppose I'd suggest beliefs are abhorrent when they are so far removed from the accepted status quo of a community that society as a whole considers them detrimental.

Personally, I think beliefs are abhorrent when they can and/or do lead to significant unjustified suffering.

sure. that's a typical definition.

Logged

don't make excuses for nasty people. you don't put a flower in an asshole and call it a vase.

God brought about some wars in ancient Israel. Humans have fought two WORLD wars and this world has remained at a constant state of war since. I just don't see where "modern morals" are all that good.

Per your own admission, we're simply doing what you claim your god did, but on a bigger scale. Surely if "some wars" are good, then many wars are better, no? Or is this a "less is more" scenario, in which case why did your god start wars in the first place?

There is no comparison in jst's world. God is good, and we have no way of challenging that, nor should we. He can't even acknowledge that genocide is bad, he wants objective proof. Genocide is good if executed by God. Go figure.

The because you keep trying to insert objective morals.

I cannot agree when you keep failing to define "bad" by failing to explain what makes his actions bad. You assert the flood and the killing of Israel's enemies was bad. My question is, bad for what?

So morality is subjective. How, then, is this god's judgement of who's righteous and who's not any more valid than mine or the prostitutes I drove by a few months ago?

I don't think I would describe it as subjective so much as I would describe it as relative. It's relative to the object of that morality which appears to be whatever we assign the most value. For example, we have pest control because we assign more value to our happiness than we do to pests. Therefore, fumigation isn't immoral. Humans farm livestock because they value human life more than livestock. Therefore faming livestock isn't immoral. In some cultures they assign a high value on certain animals. To them, eating the animal is immoral. Morality seems to be all about placing value on things.

Whatever is benficial to what we assign the highest value is moral. Whatever is detremental to that is immoral. Jetson is assigning the highest value to human life and his morality reflects that. God assigns the highest value to his purposes and his morality reflects that.

And since humans have no objective value, any value in God's eyes is going to be a value he assigns relative to his own purposes.

Logged

Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

It's relative to the object of that morality which appears to be whatever we assign the most value. For example, we have pest control because we assign more value to our happiness than we do to pests. Therefore, fumigation isn't immoral. Humans farm livestock because they value human life more than livestock. Therefore faming livestock isn't immoral. In some cultures they assign a high value on certain animals. To them, eating the animal is immoral. Morality seems to be all about placing value on things.

no, jst, there is no difference, but you certainly wish there was to excuse your ignorant claim.

Really? So me writing a book about a subject is no different than me adding to someone else's book? Why then is that illegal?

Should we teach our children it's okay to add to other people's books? Don't you think that's a bit ridiculous? I mean, do you listen to yourself?

we're talking about the bible here, dear. People add to other people's stories all of the time, check out any genera series.

Quote

so, you willign to be someone's slave, jst? Is it best to be owned and controlled or not? Or are we back to might equals right, which has you excusing most of the worst people in history?

and I am curious if you think babies and children are people or not.

Quote

We are all slaves to whatever we obey.

no, we are not. But nice attempt to lie about what the word slave means.

Quote

"Come to me, all you who are toiling and loaded down, and I will refresh you. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am mild-tempered and lowly in heart, and you will find refreshment for yourselves. For my yoke is kindly, and my load is light.” (Mt 11:28-30)

Christians are all Christ's slaves and they were bought with the price of his own blood. They are his property. And there is nothing foolish about serving Christ.

So morality is subjective. How, then, is this god's judgement of who's righteous and who's not any more valid than mine or the prostitutes I drove by a few months ago?

The same thing that makes our judgments better than the judgment of lesser creatures. According to our goals we distinguish between beneficial pests and detrimental pests. We treat beneficial ones different than detrimental ones. Our goals are more likely going to better because we see a bigger picture.

God's purposes are more likely to be better because he sees a bigger picture.

Logged

Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

God's purposes are more likely to be better because he sees a bigger picture.

To quote you: better for what? The Bible portrays your god as a jealous god who's only interested in the best possible outcome for himself. I'd ask you to explain why this is a good thing, but you already defended slavery, so I'm guessing you'd have another brainwashed response ready.

Logged

My names are many, yet I am One.-Orion, son of Fire and Light, Sol Invictus.

To keep this simple, let's say that they have no reason to trust or distrust you - you only just met them.

Then their faith is baseless. But this appears to be an impossibility because they are putting trust in my words. Their trust may be misplaced, but it's not without a foundation of knowledge.

Quote

Let's say these people have computer records stored in DOS, and so they have text documents that support the idea of the sun rising roughly every twenty-four hours. However, nobody living in this underground city has ever been to the surface, as it was sealed off centuries ago.

Then they have some basis for faith. And if these records contained instructions for experiencing the sunrise for themselves they would have a way of testing their faith, but that too would require an act of faith in following the instructions. But if they do these things, exercise faith, then their faith will turn into knowledge. As knowledge grows then so does faith in it.

That's why science exists. Because faith in the scientific method grew over time through it's successful use. While knowledge preceded faith, faith produced more knowledge.

Logged

Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Better question:Give two examples: one example of correct knowledge that was produced by faith, and one example of incorrect knowledge that was produced by faith.

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

I don't think it's beyond the scope of science to explore this. Like the studies that have addressed the effect of prayer on illness, it would be possible to see a study that addresses the effect of prayer on wisdom. Rather than measuring temperature, heart rates, blood pressure, etc, a study might measure longevity of playing Oregon Trail, an experience in which the effect of wisdom can be observed, recorded, and analyzed. The subjects would be blind to the part of the study that determined which group was being prayed over and which was the control group. I'm not convinced scientists wouldn't be able to find more efficient ways to test this, lol!

"The Oxford English Dictionary defines wisdom as "Capacity of judging rightly in matters relating to life and conduct; soundness of judgement in the choice of means and ends; sometimes, less strictly, sound sense, esp. in practical affairs: opp. to folly;" also "Knowledge (esp. of a high or abstruse kind); enlightenment, learning, erudition."

Charles Haddon Spurgeon defined wisdom as "the right use of knowledge"

How are you going to use the scientific method to determine what is the "right use of knowledge"?

Quote

I submit you applied a scientific methodology when you calculated the risks to ask your wife to marry you. It all started with your first observation. You then went on to make many more. You considered certain possibilities these observations might mean, formulated a hypothesis, and tested it. The first time you asked her out was a test. The first time you kissed her was a test. The first time you told a joke that flopped at her feet was a test. You took the results from these tests and used them to help determine your next behavior with her. In short, we relate with people based on thinking our brain does seemingly effortlessly, but essentially scientifically nevertheless.

These are things you define as acts of love. How can you use the scientific method to come to that conclusion?

Quote

The idea that knowledge means "information stored in your head" is really interesting because it would mean you and I could both simultaneously "know" things that refute each other's knowledge. I could "know" that the cause of influenza is a virus and you could "know" that the cause of influenza is demonic intervention. By your use of the word, we both have knowledge [information in our heads], and it doesn't matter if it's reflective of reality or not because by your account that's not what knowledge addresses. That is to say, it doesn't matter which one of us is factually correct because the way you use it, knowledge doesn't address accuracy, only certainty.

Yes. That's why I said there's accurate knowledge and inaccurate knowledge. Faith can be misplaced but some sort of knowledge is always the foundation. And my objection to OAA isn't that faith can't be misplaced or be founded on in inaccurate knowledge. It's the claim that faith in itself is the antithesis of knowledge. It is actually faith that allows our knowledge to grow.

Quote

I wonder what would happen if we stopped using the word knowledge and instead used the word "data," which means roughly the same thing, albeit usually referred to in a more formal setting.

Yes. It's just pieces of information.

Quote

If I have faith in the healing powers of crystals, does that mean there is data that confirms the healing powers of crystals?

Your faith would be based on some amount of data. But that doesn't mean the data is accurate.

Quote

Is data merely the information stored in my head?

Yes.

Quote

What if that information is inaccurate? Incomplete? Associated with strong emotions that skew my ability to consider it objectively? What if my analysis of the data is inaccurate?

Then that faith is misplaced and there may be consequences. Faith and knowledge don't even compare because they are categorically different. Faith is acting on knowledge.

That is why I say atheism is a faith belief. It is faith in your worldview. Atheists deny it and want to treat "faith" like it's a dirty word, but the fact is that this world wouldn't operate without faith and atheists use it every bit as much as believers.

Logged

Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.